|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
David Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much of the funding allocated to the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy of 2000 was spent in each of the three years for which funds were allocated; 
(2) how many (a) staff, (b) X-ray scanners, (c) publicity campaigns and (d) miscellaneous costs were funded from the £209 million allocated to the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy of 2000 (i) in total and (ii) in each year of the initiative; 
(3) how much his Department spent on the Tackling Tobacco Smuggling strategy in each year of the programme; how many of his Departments staff worked on implementing the strategy in each year; and how many of these were engaged in (a) detection, (b) intelligence-gathering and analysis, (c) investigations and (d) the provision of legal advice in each such year; 
(4) pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2009, Official Report, columns 721-22W, on smuggling: tobacco, what estimate he has made of the expenditure incurred by his Department on salaries for the full-time equivalent staff allocated to tackling tobacco smuggling (a) in total, (b) engaged in detection, (c) engaged in investigations and (d) working on intelligence matters in 2007-08; 
(5) pursuant to the answer of 10 March 2009, Official Report, column 261W, on smuggling: tobacco, what expenditure his Department has incurred in running the X-ray scanners in each year since 2003; 
(6) pursuant to the answer of 26 March 2009, Official Report, column 635W, on smuggling tobacco, what the cost was of the Governments publicity campaigns to prevent tobacco smuggling in each of the last five years. 
Kitty Ussher [holding answer 24 April 2009]: It is not possible to provide details of the overall expenditure from allocated funds, to reduce levels of smuggling and supplying of illegal and counterfeit tobacco over the three years. However, we can break down various areas of the Tobacco strategy which are detailed as follows:
The figures given are HMRCs best estimate of the way resources were used in the years specified, bearing in mind that the work of staff employed on anti-fraud and smuggling activity often covers a number of different taxes and commodities.
HMRCs fleet of mobile X-ray scanners has made a vitally important contribution to the success of the tobacco smuggling strategy. HMRC has had 14 scanners in operation since 2003. These scanners were purchased between 2000 and 2001 at a total cost of £29,663,005.
|Number||Monthly maintenance (£)||Total annual cost (£)|
HM Revenue and Customs have spent almost £1.5 million (excluding VAT) on targeted media campaigns to support their anti-tobacco smuggling strategy in the last five years. The costs per year are shown as follows:
David Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether his Department has undertaken research into the effectiveness of track and trace technology used in other countries for tobacco products; 
Kitty Ussher: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) keeps abreast of developments in tracking and tracing techniques through its regular contacts with UK tobacco manufacturers and customs authorities in other EU member states, and through its participation in the development of the illicit trade protocol to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. HMRC is particularly supportive of efforts by the tobacco manufacturers to develop an industry-wide standard tracking and tracing system.
HMRC has legislation in place which requires tobacco manufacturers to control their supply chains. This legislation was introduced to reinforce the existing memoranda of understanding with tobacco manufacturers and requires manufacturers to provide tracking and tracing information for all seizures that meet the supply chain legislation criteria. These criteria are currently set at 100,000 cigarettes and 50 kg of hand-rolling tobacco.
HMRC does not require tobacco manufacturers to provide tracking and tracing information for goods on which UK excise duty has been paid and which are sold legitimately in the UK. As such, no tobacco products legitimately sold in the UK were monitored by HMRC using track and trace technology.
Lorely Burt: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the sums which have accrued to the Exchequer attributable to IR35 measures in each financial year since their introduction; 
(3) how many cases HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has brought against (a) individuals and (b) companies under IR35 measures in each year since their introduction; how many such cases have been settled in HMRCs favour; and how many cases are outstanding; 
(5) what claims under performance indicators HM Revenue and Customs uses to monitor the performance of its team investigating claims under IR35 measures; and what performance was recorded against such indicators in each financial year since the introduction of IR35. 
HMRC conducts Employer Compliance reviews where IR35 is one of a possible number of risks. A number of reviews result in further action. Some are settled by agreement and the others go before a tribunal for resolution. Aggregative data about how such specific inquiries are settled are not routinely collected.
HMRC does not have any specific IR35 performance indicators. HMRC compliance activity is aligned to its Departmental Strategic Objectives as set out on page 18 of HMRCs Autumn Performance Report 2008. Additional performance indicators are shown in Section 5, pages 42 and 43, of the same report:
Kitty Ussher: Landfill tax is a UK wide tax on the disposal of waste by way of landfill at authorised landfill sites. There are two rates of landfill tax which reflects the significant environmental impact landfilling has on the environment.
The standard rate applies to active wastes that decay, currently set at £40 per tonne. The lower rate applies to inactive or inert wastes, currently set at £2.50 per tonne, which reflects the fact that they have less of an environmental impact than active wastes, which can emit greenhouse gases such as methane.
Wastes that benefit from the lower rate are listed in the Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 1996. These include rocks and soils and concrete materials that may be considered construction materials.
HM Revenue and Customs do not collate information on investigations in this form. Where domicile is an issue within an inquiry it is rarely the only one and may or not be the initial reason that the inquiry was started. Statistics on domicile are not separated from other issues in such inquiries.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to reimburse compound interest to taxpayers in cases of overpayment of (a) value added tax and (b) domestic and non-domestic rates. 
Mr. Timms: VAT law provides that interest, calculated at a simple rate, should be paid to taxpayers who have overdeclared VAT as a result of official error. It also provides that taxpayers are charged interest at a simple rate if they have underdeclared VAT. To claim interest on overdeclarations of VAT, taxpayers have to make a valid claim in writing to HMRC within prescribed time limits. The question of whether HMRC is liable to pay compound or simple interest on overdeclared VAT claims is currently the subject of litigation and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
A council tax payer is entitled to request a refund of overpaid council tax following a council tax rebanding. However, there is no requirement in the council tax legislative framework for local authorities to pay interest on any overpayment of council tax.
If a non-domestic ratepayer overpays their liability, as well as providing a refund, the Non-Domestic Rating (Payment of Interest Regulations) 1990 provide for billing authorities to pay an additional amount by way of interest. There are no provisions in the regulations for the payment of compound interest to ratepayers.
Kitty Ussher: It is estimated that the removal of value added tax on interval bingo would forego around £25 million in revenue in 2009-10. This includes the impact of value added tax removal on excise duty revenues from bingo and other gambling sectors.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what criteria Partnerships for Schools apply to determine whether an academy should be built through the National Framework. 
Mr. Coaker: Partnership for Schools (PfS), the NDPB responsible for the delivery of the Building Schools for Future (BSF) programme, actively seeks to deliver all schools through established Local Education Partnerships. If this is not possible as a result of the local authority in question not currently being part of the BSF programme or if the LEP is unable to respond to the time scale required then the national framework will be considered as a delivery option.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) what the average length of the (a) brokering phase, (b) period between statement of interest to expression of interest, (c) period between expression of interest to funding agreement and (d) period between funding agreement to opening was in respect of new academies which entered the brokering phase between (i) June 2005 and June 2006, (ii) June 2006 and June 2007, (iii) June 2007 and June 2008 and (iv) June 2008 and May 2009; 
(2) what the length of the (a) brokering phase, (b) period between statement of interest to expression of interest, (c) period between expression of interest to funding agreement and (d) period between funding agreement to opening was for each academy which has opened. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|